See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339338434

Study on Relationship between Roles of Public Open Spaces and Pedestrians

Inside Campus

Article  in  Acta Technica Jaurinensis · February 2020

DOI: 10.14513/actatechjaur.v13.n1.537

CITATIONS READS

0 78

3 authors:

chompoonut kongphunphin Pál Hegyi

Thammasat University Széchenyi István University, Gyor
13 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    3 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Csaba Koren
Széchenyi István University, Gyor
33 PUBLICATIONS   79 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Road Safety View project

Ph.D thesis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by chompoonut kongphunphin on 30 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Acta Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 00-00, 2020
Technica DOI: 10.14513/actatechjaur.v13.n1.537
Jaurinensis CC BY-NC 4.0

Study on Relationship between Roles of Public

Open Spaces and Pedestrians Inside Campus:
Case Studies from Universities in Thailand and
Hungary
C. Kongphunphin1, P. Hegyi2, C. Koren2,*
1
Thammasat University, Faculty of Architecture and planning
Klong luang, 12120 Pathum thani, Thailand
2
Széchenyi István University, Department of Transport Infrastructure and
Water Resources Engineering
Egyetem tér 1, 9026 Győr, Hungary
e-mail: koren@sze.hu

Abstract: Public open spaces in campuses are social places for students and staffs.
Convenient accessibility both physical and visual is the main factor that
attracts people to use these spaces. This article analyses the physical
layout of public open spaces through their relationship with the
surrounding. The purpose of this study is to compare the relationship
between public open spaces and pedestrians in the campuses. The case
study conducted in four campuses located in Thailand and Hungary. In
order to get the required data, spatial analysis from Geographic
Information System and observation survey was employed as
qualitative techniques. The study revealed that pedestrian facilities are
the most important accessibility types in public open spaces in each
campus. The different lengths of pedestrian facilities are related with
three factors of campuses’ layout. They are the size, surrounding and
design elements of the campuses and their public open spaces.

Keywords: public open space; pedestrian facilities; campus

0
 C. Kongphunphin et al. – Acta Technica Jaurinensis, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 00-00, 2020

1. Introduction
Campuses were defined as both public and semi-public spaces depending on
campus access control policy. Campuses have the main role for educating and
training students. There are many places inside campuses which are used not only
by students and staff but also by the general public, such as a library, cafeteria,
gymnasium, public open space, and so on. In any campus, its public open space is a
social space with many types and functions. Public open spaces in campus are places
for several activities that users can choose by themselves (for example reading,
sitting, standing around, chatting, social gathering, waiting, and passing-by). In
addition, there are many design elements in the spaces for promoting more
convenient, safe, aesthetic, and attractive use by people. Landscapes and streetscapes
design are used for developing public open spaces such as trees, fountains, lawns,
planting, colourful plants, facilities )for example, benches, bins, lamps, structures
and monuments(, natural views, and pedestrian facilities.
Public open space is a necessary component of campuses, but poor access to public
open spaces can lead to unused areas, undesirable behaviour, strain on management,
and other difficulties. In the following pages, this study analyses the relationship
between roles of public open spaces and pedestrians inside campuses and their public
open spaces. We analyse four campuses; they are Széchenyi István University in
Gyor, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, University of Debrecen,
and Thammasat University as case studies of public open spaces in campuses. First,
we define the difference of layouts of the campuses. Second, we examine how to get
spatial layouts and connections of open public space in the campuses. We also look
at basic considerations for designing open public spaces, including comfort and
convenience, visual quality, safety, and access. Much of spatial and accessible data
is based on Geographic Information System )GIS( and Open Street Map )OSM(
because they were the richest information available and up to date. The data from
the tools is integrated with the data from sites surveying. We hope to discern the
relationship between roles of public open spaces and pedestrians. There are two
goals in this study stated as follows; to compare the physical layout of public spaces
in the university and to compare the relationship between roles and pedestrian
facilities inside the campus.
This study is a part of the doctoral thesis which topic is “An Approach to Promote
Creative Urban Public Space for Sustaining Social Identity”. Of course, no town is
the same as another, but many share similarities. Since this research is a comparative
research between Asia and Europe, the results of the study will be compared the
relationship between roles of public open spaces and pedestrians inside campus with
case studies from universities in Thailand and Hungary. We should identify the
differences in geographical conditions, context and culture, and other situations.

1
 C. Kongphunphin et al. – Acta Technica Jaurinensis, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 00-00, 2020

These factors are causing variations of user behaviour and design of public spaces.
Ultimately, the goal is to integrate knowledge and to establish recommendations for
suitable public spaces in Thailand. Guidelines to build aesthetic urban environment,
agreeable with urban lifestyles, will be mentioned and established. These will be
recommended for implementation in the relevant sectors of urban spatial usage.

1.1. Public open spaces in campuses

Campuses can be roughly classified in two types: closed and open campus. Both
are different for accessibility. Closed campuses always have office hours and the
area is surrounded by fence. It is for protection and safety including a definition of
the public and private zone [1][2]. Notwithstanding, building the best academic
facilities is not enough to foster a well-rounded educational experience. Comfortable
and lively public spaces provide informal places in and near campuses that can bring
students, faculty, staff, visitors, and the community together [3]. However, public
open spaces have no exact function [4][5]. They are adjustable by users. Mostly
public open spaces are social places where people interact with each other [6]. They
can influence physical activity in at least three ways [7]. First, public open space can
be a setting where people engage in physical activities. Second, public open space
can be a destination to which people actively travel either to be active or simply to
socialize. Finally, public open space can be used as part of a route to pass through to
reach another destination (for example, passing through a greenway to reach a shop)
or as part of a recreational walk or running route. Hence public open spaces can
contribute to different types of physical activities. For example, public open space
as a thoroughfare is related to active travel, as a destination to either active travel or
recreational physical activity, or public open space as a setting might be related to
recreational walking or cycling, running, dog walking, formal or informal sport, or
children’s active play [7].

1.2. Pedestrian facilities and public open spaces

Access and linkages are the most important factors that make public spaces to be
a great place [8]. A good public space network connects the different functions and
public spaces of the city and invites people to walk. An attractive pedestrian network
offers good climatic conditions and interesting things to look at, inviting people to
walk. A comfortable pedestrian landscape has wide sidewalks of high-quality
materials. Sidewalks should follow pedestrian desire lines and provide direct routes
and direct access to buildings, open spaces and destinations. Sidewalks should be
designed so that street furniture, trees, bicycle parking, signage, public transit stops,
outdoor servings etc. do not block the area designated for walking. Streetscapes
should be thoughtfully and artistically designed to draw more people to walk for
both utility and pleasure [9].

2
 C. Kongphunphin et al. – Acta Technica Jaurinensis, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 00-00, 2020

Walking is a physical activity in public open spaces [10] [11]. Walking distance
standards vary around the world. An individual’s willingness to walk varies greatly
depending on age, health, time availability, quality of surroundings, safety, climate,
and many other factors. The majority of walking studies are for and about
commuters. Most people are only willing to walk a quarter mile as part of a commute
or approximate 400 meters in a single walking distance [12] [13]. Streets were once
a place where people stopped for conversation. In the same time, pedestrian facilities
are not only the ways for walking through but also, they are public open spaces. In
addition, pedestrian facilities with streetscapes are design elements in public open
spaces. These promote to attract people to use public open spaces [14]. They are easy
to get to and get through; they are visible both from a distance and up close [14].
Moreover, walking is a green travel mode that is beneficial to the environment and
the economy and can promote the health of campus users [15]. Previous research has
mostly focused on using pedestrian facilities in campuses. Planners and designers
are concerned with walking conditions to solve many problems (for example, global
warming, health problems, energy consumption, air pollution, etc.). For instance, in
Kasetsart University, walking is the third most frequent travel mode after private
cars and public transport [16].
Pedestrian facilities in public open spaces are the basic tools of accessibility.
Walking is the suitable type of connections for campuses because it makes no cost,
promotes safety, leads to healthier life, and makes more communities. Paths are the
elements that can help people to get the most sense of places [17].

2. Material and Methods

This study is a qualitative research by site surveying in four campuses which are
located in Thailand and Hungary. Széchenyi István University, Gyor; Budapest
University of Technology and Economics, Budapest; and University of Debrecen,
Debrecen are three case studies in Hungary. Thammasat University is the one case
study in Thailand. The methods of this study are divided into five steps leading to
the result. They are: Subject specification, Literature review, Data collection, Data
analysis, and Conclusion. The framework of the research is shown in Figure 1.
a( The study on the relationship between roles of public open spaces and its
connections inside campus: The case study of the universities in Thailand and
Hungary. There are two goals in this study as follows:
• To compare physical layouts of the campuses
• To compare relationship between roles and pedestrian facilities inside the
campus

3
 C. Kongphunphin et al. – Acta Technica Jaurinensis, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 00-00, 2020

b( Literature review collects secondary data relating to concepts and theories

concerning public open spaces and connections in campuses. The data come from
many sources and features; they are editorial online papers, maps, pictures, spatial
analysis from Geographic Information System )GIS( and Open Street Map )OSM(.
• Public open spaces, assessing the importance of public open spaces in the
campus, character, pattern, size, shape, and type of public open spaces.
• Connections, consisting of roads for vehicles and pedestrian facilities in
the campus and public open spaces, and the relationship between public
spaces’ layout and its pedestrian facilities.
c( Data are collected from site observations; the data are related to connections
and convenience in public open spaces. Dependent variables are the layouts of the
campuses and their public open spaces, surrounding, size, types of connections, and
length of connections.
d( The analysis uses illustration by sketching and plotting zones, including
analysis tools. They are Geographic Information System (GIS) and Open Street Map
)OSM(.
• Illustration: This research applies this method for describing space from
site observations. All primary data are managed by sketching and plotting
on maps for easy clarification of the space.
• Spatial analysis: This research applies GIS (Geographic Information
System) and Open Street Map )OSM( for spatial analyses to define types
of connections. Furthermore, land use, roads for vehicles, and other
characteristics of space are analysed.
• From section 3, we will get layouts of the campuses with spatial and
accessibility details. They are location and surrounding, areas, the length
of roads for vehicles and the length of pedestrian facilities.
e( Verification of this research is comparing the ratio of the length of connections
per area in four campuses. They are the ratio of the length of road for vehicles per
campus areas, the length of roads for vehicles per public open space areas, the length
of pedestrian facilities per campus areas, and length of pedestrian facilities per public
open space areas.
f( The conclusion of this research will be representing the relationship between
roles and pedestrian facilities inside the campuses.

4
 C. Kongphunphin et al. – Acta Technica Jaurinensis, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 00-00, 2020

Figure 1. The framework of the study

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Physical layouts of the campuses

The layouts of the campuses can be divided into two types by their location. In the
first group, campuses were located in or near the city are Széchenyi István University
and Budapest University of Technology and Economics. In the second group, the
campuses were located far from the city with the cloistered environment like

5
 C. Kongphunphin et al. – Acta Technica Jaurinensis, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 00-00, 2020

Thammasat University and the University of Debrecen. Moreover, the campuses are
different in size of the area and in the character of planning.
Referring to the following layouts of the campuses in Figure 2., it is visible that
Széchenyi University and Budapest University of Technology and Economics are
small and medium size of campuses. Both are located within a kilometre radius of
the city. The campuses are surrounded by groups of residential and commercial land
use with dense buildings. On the other hand, Thammasat University and the
University of Debrecen are the two with the largest area, with big public open spaces.
They are located far away from the city and surrounded by big open space. Both
campuses have the character of a small town with facilities such as shops, banks, etc.

Figure 2. The layouts of the campuses

In terms of publicness and privacy, Széchenyi István University is the only one
campus in the study that is a fully public space because it has no fences. Public open
spaces inside the campus are always open. In addition, the campus connects to
Mosoni Danube River on the West side. It is a big recreation park and beach where
people can walk through from the public open space into the campus. On the other
hand, Thammasat University, The University of Debrecen, and Budapest University
of Technology and Economics are semi-public spaces or closed campuses. They are
surrounded by fences and they are opened or closed by official hours. The main user
of the campuses and their public open spaces are students and staff.
The layouts of the campuses containing the different connections and public open
spaces are shown in Table 1.
The public open spaces in each campus have different physical outlines. They are
distributed in many locations in campuses and they have also many shapes. For
instance, there are big public open spaces connecting academic buildings, some are
small and are surrounded by other places, or they are green areas as a greenbelt
boundary. The differences of these public open spaces are various the identities or
characters of the spaces.

6
 C. Kongphunphin et al. – Acta Technica Jaurinensis, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 00-00, 2020

Table 1. Layout and plans of the campuses

Layouts Connections Public open spaces

Széchenyi István
University Gyor
Technology and Economics
Budapest University of
University of Debrecen
Thammasat university
(Rangsit campus),
Pathumthani

Public open spaces in Thammasat University and the University of Debrecen are
big open spaces. They are located at the edge of the campus and they are separated
from the building zones by roads for vehicles which is the main accessibility to the

7
 C. Kongphunphin et al. – Acta Technica Jaurinensis, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 00-00, 2020

public open space. Public open spaces in Széchenyi István University and Budapest
University of Technology and Economics are located in the center of the campus
areas. The public open spaces are surrounded by groups of buildings and also
connected to the buildings by pedestrian facilities. The design elements are related
with the use of these public open spaces. They are street furniture in public open
spaces and landscape design for promoting comfort and convenience for users. There
are trees, lawn, planting, colorful plants, facilities, natural views, pond, and so on.
The main activities here are reading, sitting, standing around, chatting, social
gathering, waiting, and passing by. The design elements in public open spaces and
activities in each public open space are rather similar in the four campuses as shown
in Table 2.

3.2. Relationship between roles and pedestrian facilities inside the campus
3.2.1. Pedestrian facilities in the campuses and their public open spaces
• Road for vehicles in the campuses
The lengths of the road for vehicles in Széchenyi István University, Budapest
University of Technology and Economics, University of Debrecen, and Thammasat
University are 1,518 m., 1,564 m., 10,996 m., and 44,609 m. respectively. Széchenyi
István University and Budapest University of Technology and Economics have no
roads for vehicles in their public open spaces. The lengths of the roads for vehicles
in public open spaces in University of Debrecen and Thammasat University are 799
m. and 682 m. respectively.
Thammasat University has the highest ratio of the length of road for vehicles per
square meter. It is 0.036 )m./sq. m.(. Széchenyi István University and the University
of Debrecen have approximate ratios. They are 0.017 )m./sq. m.( and 0.015 )m./sq.
m.( respectively. Budapest University of Technology and Economics has the lowest
ratio of the length of roads for vehicles per square meter. It is 0.005 )m. /sq. m.(.
• Pedestrian facilities in the public open spaces
The lengths of pedestrian facilities in Széchenyi István University, Budapest
University of Technology and Economics, University of Debrecen, and Thammasat
University are 1,469 m., 5,141 m., 4,179 m., and 26,013 m. respectively. The lengths
of pedestrian facilities in their public open spaces are 297 m., 667 m., 1,784 m., and
3,061 m. respectively.

8
 C. Kongphunphin et al. – Acta Technica Jaurinensis, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 00-00, 2020

Table 2. The environment and functions of the campuses

9
 C. Kongphunphin et al. – Acta Technica Jaurinensis, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 00-00, 2020

• Ratio of length per area

The ratios of the length of roads for vehicles per campus areas of Széchenyi István
University, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, University of
Debrecen, and Thammasat University are 0.017 m., 0.005 m., 0.006 m., and 0.036
m. respectively.
The ratios of the length of roads for vehicles per public open space areas in
University of Debrecen and Thammasat University are 0.004 m., and 0.003 m.
respectively. Széchenyi István University and Budapest University of Technology
and Economics have no this ratios because they have no roads for vehicles in their
open spaces.
The ratios of the length of pedestrian facilities per campus areas are 0.016 m.,
0.016 m., 0.006 m., and 0.021 m. respectively. And the ratios of the length of
pedestrian facilities per public of open space areas are 0.057 m., and 0.053 m., 0.009
m., and 0.016 m. respectively (Table 3.).
3.2.2. The comparison of length and ratio of connections in the campuses.
Referring to Table 3, the comparison of spatial and accessibility details of the
campuses are as follows:
• Széchenyi István University has the smallest areas, related both the campus
and its public open space. Moreover, the campus has the shortest connections
both road for vehicles and pedestrian facilities. On the other hand, the campus
has the highest ratio of the length of pedestrian facilities in public open space
per public open space area.
• Budapest University of Technology and Economics has the second smallest
areas both the campus and its public open space. At the same time, the
campus has the lowest ratio of the length of road for vehicles in the campus
per campus area.
• University of Debrecen has the longest roads for vehicles in the public open
spaces. Consequently, the campus has the highest ratio of the length of roads
for vehicles in the public open space per public open space area. It has also
the lowest ratio of pedestrian facilities per area related both the campus and
the public open space area
• Thammasat University has the biggest area, related both the campus and its
public open space. The campus has the longest roads for vehicles in the
campus area. It has also the longest pedestrian facilities in the campus and in
public open space areas. Moreover, the campus has the highest ratio of the
length of roads for vehicles in the campus per campus area including the ratio
of pedestrian facilities in the campus per campus area.

10
 C. Kongphunphin et al. – Acta Technica Jaurinensis, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 00-00, 2020

Table 3. Length and ratio of connections in the campuses

11
 C. Kongphunphin et al. – Acta Technica Jaurinensis, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 00-00, 2020

In conclusion, each public open space has pedestrian facilities longer than the road
for vehicles. Széchenyi István University has the most pedestrian facilities in public
open space. Following the forerunner, the ranking is: Budapest University of
Technology and Economics, Thammasat University, and University of Debrecen.
We can notice that the length of road for vehicles is related to the layouts of the
campuses. Several campuses have long roads for vehicles, as seen in Thammasat
University and University of Debrecen. Moreover, the character of building location
is one of the factors that affects the length of roads for vehicles. If buildings or public
open spaces in the campuses are connected with each other, the length of roads for
vehicles will be small. On the other hand, the length of pedestrian facilities will be
high. As shown in this study, Budapest University of Technology and Economics
has many groups of buildings. They are located close to each other; some are even
connected to each other. The lengths of roads for vehicles in the campus and in its
public open space are shorter than in the other campuses. Therefore, the ratios of the
roads for vehicles per the campus area and its public open space area are the lowest.
They are only 0.005 )m./sq. m.( and 0 )m./sq. m.( respectively as shown in Table 3.
Particularly, Széchenyi István University has only pedestrian facilities in its public
open space. In addition, Széchenyi István University has the highest ratio of
pedestrian facilities in public open space per public open space area. It is 0.057 )m.
/sq. m.( as shown in Table 3.
It was found that the different lengths of pedestrian facilities are related to the
layout of the campuses and the functions of their public open spaces. Pedestrian
facilities are the main connections to public open spaces. The spatial arrangement of
pedestrian facilities is influenced by the following three factors (Figure 3).
a) The size of the campus and its public open space: Pedestrian facilities are
good for connecting buildings and public open spaces in acceptable distance for
humans. Because a single walking distance standard for all situations is 400 meters,
thus the smaller the areas, the closer the distance the pedestrians are using. On the
other hand, the bigger the areas, the longer are the distances. In this case, the road
for vehicles is important to connect buildings and public open spaces.
b) Surrounding of the campus and its public open space: Design and planning
zones, groups of buildings, and public open spaces in the surrounding are affecting
the types of connections. If the surrounding it built-in, pedestrian facilities will be
created. Furthermore, a short distance between buildings and public open spaces is
attracting people to walk because of building shadow.
c) Design elements: All four public open spaces in the campuses have elements
of landscape designs. They promote safety, comfort, and convenience to users for
using the spaces including supporting the aesthetic in public open spaces.

12
C. Kongphunphin et al. – Acta Technica Jaurinensis, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 00-00, 2020

Figure 3. Land use and connections in the campuses

13
 C. Kongphunphin et al. – Acta Technica Jaurinensis, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 00-00, 2020

4. Conclusions
Campuses are important places to students and staff, including the community
around the campuses. Consequently, layout and planning of campuses should match
with the context and the surrounding. The open space also creates a pedestrian
precinct that is connected by circulation pathways through which the students and
staff pass in their movement from parking, walkways, and buildings. Pedestrian
facilities are the main means of mobility to public open spaces in the campuses.
These facilities are related to the different layouts of the campuses including the size
of the campus and its public open space, the surrounding the campus and its public
open space, and its design elements.
This study only used site surveying and spatial analysis data from Geographic
Information System )GIS( and Open Street Map )OSM(. For future study,
questionnaires will be used for collecting information about user’s behaviors and
preferences. The relationship between the layout and the usage will add more value
to the study.

Acknowledgement
This study was supported by Erasmus+ student mobility between Programme and
Partner Countries grant )16/1/KA107/022781-4(. We thank our colleagues from
Széchenyi István University who provided insight and expertise that greatly assisted
the research.

References
[1] H. Arendt, The Public and the Private Realm, in: The Human Condition,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1998, pp. 182-230.

[2] A. Madanipour, Whose Public Space? Routledge. New York, 2010.

[3] J. Walljasper, Big Plans on Campus (2009) [cited 2020-01-27].

URL https://www.pps.org/reference/campusbulletin/

[4] P.K. Baran, W.R. Smith et al. Park use among youth and adults: examination
of individual, social, and urban form factors. Environment and Behavior 46
(6) (2013) pp. 768–800.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512470134

[5] A.T. Kaczynski, K.A. Henderson. Parks and recreation settings and active
living: a review of associations with physical activity function and intensity,

14
 C. Kongphunphin et al. – Acta Technica Jaurinensis, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 00-00, 2020

Journal of Physical Activity and Health 5 (4) (2008) pp. 619–632.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.5.4.619

[6] C. Holland, A. Clark et al.: Social interactions in urban public places. The
Open University, Policy Press, Bristol, 2007. [cited 2020-01-27].
URLhttps://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrate
d/files/2017-interactions-public-places.pdf

[7] M.J. Koohsari, S. Mavoa et al. Public open space, physical activity, urban
design and public health: Concepts, methods and research agenda. Health &
Place 33 (2015) 75–82.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2015.02.009

[8] Project for Public Spaces and Metropolitan Planning Council. A Guide to
Neighborhood Placemaking in Chicago, Project for Public Spaces, New
York, 2008. [cited 2020-01-27].
URL http://www.placemakingchicago.com/cmsfiles/
placemaking_guide.pdf

[9] Gehl Graphic Library. Public Space & Pedestrian Realm. A. Connectivity –
The Public Space Network, 2011. [cited 2020-01-27].
URL http://www.bettermarketstreetsf.org/docs/BMS_P2-
1_BestPractices_12072011.pdf

[10] J. Schipperijn, U.K. Stigsdotter et al. Influences on the use of urban green
space—A case study in Odense, Denmark, Urban Forestry and Urban
Greening 9 (1) (2010) pp. 25–32.
doi https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.09.002

[11] T. Sugiyama, J. Francis et al. Associations between recreational walking and

attractiveness, size, and proximity of neighborhood open spaces. American
Journal of Public Health, 100 (9) (2010) pp. 1752-1757.
doi https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.182006

[12] T. Morar, L. Bertolini, Planning for Pedestrians: A Way Out of Traffic

Congestion, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 81 (2013) pp. 600-
608.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.483

15
 C. Kongphunphin et al. – Acta Technica Jaurinensis, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 00-00, 2020

[13] J. Walker, Human Transit. basics: walking distance to transit (2011) [cited
2020-01-27].
URL http://humantransit.org/2011/04/basics-walking-
distance-to-transit.html

[14] W.H. Whyte, Streets as Places: How Transportation Can Create a Sense of
Community, Project for Public Spaces (2014) [cited 2020-01-27].
URL www.pps.org/reference/streets-as-places-how-
transportation-can-create-a-sense-of-community

[15] Z. Asadi-Shekari, M. Moeinaddini, M. Zaly Shah, A pedestrian level of

service method for evaluating and promoting walking facilities on campus
streets, Land Use Policy 38 (2014) pp. 175–193.
doi https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.11.007

[16] R. Panitat, The appropriate walkway towards sustainable transportation in the

university community: A case study of Kasetsart University, 16th Annual
International Sustainable Development Research Conference, Bangkhen
Campus, Hong Kong, China, 30 May – 1 June 2010.

[17] K. Lynch, The Image of the City, The M.I.T. press, Cambridge, 1990.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license.

16

View publication stats